beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 249,919,660 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from December 18, 2012 to February 17, 2015.
Reasons
1. Details of ruling;
(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name: Business name (B): The defendant on December 3, 2009, No. 2009-1141 of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs announced on December 3, 2009
B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on November 16, 2012 - subject to expropriation: Guri-si 331 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”): Compensation for losses: 163,127,700 won - The Plaintiff asserted that the instant land should be assessed as a site according to the actual situation of use, but the said assertion was not accepted on the ground that “the instant land was altered and altered without obtaining permission for development activities, as the land within the development restriction zone.”
- Commencement date of expropriation: December 17, 2012
The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on April 19, 2013 - The plaintiff raised an objection against the said ruling to evaluate the land as a site in accordance with the actual utilization of the land in this case. However, the Central Land Tribunal does not accept the above assertion on the ground that “the building on the ground in this case was constructed without permission after 1989, and thus, it is reasonable to evaluate the land in this case before it is the current use as at the time when the building was constructed.” However, the compensation for losses should be increased to KRW 163,292,00. - The Land Appraisal Corporation and the Central Land Appraisal Corporation (hereinafter “Adjudication Appraisal Corporation”) [the grounds for recognition: Facts that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence, evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply).
(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The part of the Plaintiff’s assertion was already constructed on the ground in around 1968, and it was legally changed to the form and quality of the land, and around 1988, church buildings were constructed on the site, and up to now, so the Plaintiff’s assertion has to be evaluated as a site according to the actual situation of use. However, the Plaintiff’s ruling appraiser should be assessed as a site.